Another Night in the Hypocritical World of Congress

I am sorry to report that I will be offering more of an opinion piece on someone else’s work this evening. However, as I begin writing this it is already 2:50 am and I have no time to write a massive research piece. The good news is Mrs. Weapon is feeling a bit better and, as such, we were able to spend the evening hanging out and actually enjoying each other’s company (which means we hung out and watched Grey’s Anatomy and Private Practice, which I can tolerate and even sometimes enjoy). Unfortunately her medication knocked her out all day so she is still up at this time of night, never a good thing for her. But she is recovering. It looks like she may get to return to work by the end of next week. But for now, she is up and moving around, which is a good thing. As for tonight, I again reach out to quickly discuss an article offered by someone else. It is a topic I though of covering, but I will instead simply offer my thoughts on what this author is saying on the subject. The guest commentary article for tomorrow is already written, which means tomorrow night I can hang out with my wife without any guilt, LOL.

Republican leaders on Thursday called on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to “rein in” Florida Rep. Alan Grayson after he said Republicans want Americans to “die quickly” if they get sick and compared the health care crisis to a holocaust.

“I think it’s time for the Democratic leaders and the speaker of the House herself to rein in the rhetoric that she decried just several weeks ago,” House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said. “And if he’s not going to apologize to the American people and to Republicans as he should, really, that’s the Democratic leadership’s responsibility to have a conversation with their own member,” Boehner added.

Grayson’s remarks inflamed an already divisive national debate on health care reform, the rhetoric of which has included Nazi symbols, charges of planned death panels and disruptive protests at town hall meetings hosted by lawmakers.

“We ought to be able to have an honest, calm debate about health care …without disparaging each other,” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Thursday, commenting on the latest developments.

House Republicans, seeking payback after Democrats succeeded in voting to reprimand South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson last month for shouting “You Lie!” at President Obama during his address to Congress, are planning to introduce a resolution of disapproval for Grayson’s remarks.

A spokesman for Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga, who prepared the resolution, said he would not introduce it Thursday.

“Mr. Grayson’s actions on the floor were an embarrassment to this Congress and warrant an apology both to his colleagues and, more importantly, to the people of his district who he insulted on the House floor,” Price’s spokesman, Brendan Buck, said in a written statement.

“It is the job of the Speaker to ensure the House runs with proper decorum, and we would hope that she would not tolerate such behavior,” he added.

Pelosi said Thursday that anyone using harsh rhetoric to raise fears about health care reform should apologize and get on with writing policy — and that includes people in her own Democratic caucus.

She says she wants honesty and a public debate without distractions... LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL LIAR

“We have to have a public debate that is not distracting,” she told reporters Thursday at her weekly press conference.

But she added that she believes Republicans are holding Democrats to a higher standard than their own members.

“You have seen the statements that are regularly made by the Republicans on the floor about issues that relate to death,” she said.

If anybody is going to apologize, she added, everybody should, and heated rhetoric shouldn’t get in the way of the complex job of overhauling the health care system.

But Republicans interpreted Pelosi’s comments as a tacit endorsement of Grayson’s behavior.

“The only thing lower than the Speaker’s actions — or inaction — are her ever-worsening public approval ratings,” Ken Spain, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said in a written statement.

“By refusing to call on Alan Grayson to apologize, Nancy Pelosi is tacitly endorsing the despicable actions of an unstable congressman and casting her lot in with the extremist wing of her party,” he said.

Grayson, meanwhile, was steadfast in his refusal to apologize.

Alan Grayson with the new Democratic mascot

“No, not at all,” he said when asked if he regretted comparing the health care crisis to a holocaust. “My goodness, there are 44,000 people who die every year in the U.S. because of no health care.”

Grayson rejected the notion that he went too far with his comparison.

“Let’s not get hung up on words, let’s get hung up on deeds,” he said. “It doesn’t matter what words we use to describe it. It matters that they are dead and we have to save them.”

Grayson said he has received an “overwhelmingly positive” response from the public over his remarks.

“People are excited a congressman is finally telling it like it is,” he said. “A congressman with guts.”

But most political analysts believe Grayson went too far with his remarks.

“He’s getting a lot of attention because he clearly went overboard with the holocaust analogy,” political analyst Juan Williams told FOX News.

“Whenever I hear politicians use that and it’s unfortunate how frequent it comes, it seems to me an invitation to be marginalized and ignored because they have no sense of history,” he said, adding “it’s just offensive to be blunt about it.”

Allow me to remain in the middle on this one. It is easy for me to do since I am fairly disgusted with the childish games that both sides continue to play around this. First from the point of the Republicans. I understand their being upset. What this jackass from Florida said was really pretty offensive. And I can agree that when Democrats are offering resolutions on the House floor to disapprove of Joe Wilson’s idiotic outburst, they certainly should be doing the same to a person who compares this to something as nasty as the holocaust. As for his statement that Republicans want Americans to hurry up and die. Who cares. This is the kind of inane nonsense that comes out of these politicians gaping mouths every day. But I do see the Republican’s point on the hypocrisy of the Democratic leadership not stepping forward and condemning this statement.

Next to the Democrats. They have control of the House. So Republicans had better start to realize that and understand that whatever petty games they want to play with resolutions like the Joe Wilson thing, they are going to play. The Republicans would have done the same thing if the roles were reversed. I don’t understand the Speaker of the House not at least telling Grayson that he should offer an apology. After all, Wilson offered one to the public and the White House immediately. I do, however, agree with Pelosi’s statement about the increasingly harsh rhetoric and how it must stop. Unfortunately I don’t think she really meant it in the least. I think the Speaker is like every other piece of trash in DC, they thrive when they can keep America bitterly divided. And I recognize that the Democrats must think it awful hypocritical that the Republicans are pretending to be offended after some of the things they have said publicly.

I will say this, though. I do agree that the Speaker’s statements and inaction thus far DO indicate an endorsement of this statement. However, this lack of leadership is exactly what I expected from her on the day that she assumed the role of Speaker of the House. She is an extremely far left liberal. There is no denying that. And as such, she is going to endorse marginalizing the opposition through statements of ridicule and statements that distort the position of the “enemy” in a way that demonizes them. She is, after all, a member of the Saul Alinsky fan club.

But my overall thought is this: This is simply another example of the games that these two parties play. The rhetoric back and forth, each demonizing the positions of the other side in a way that is meant to elicit an emotional response from the public. I don’t believe for a second that Grayson has regular voters telling him they like what he did or any of that “finally a Congressman with guts telling it like it is” bullshit. Since when do any of these 535 elitists actually talk to any of the commoners outside of during campaign season?

I see the fact that this story is gaining any traction as a sign that members of Congress want it to gain traction. And that is because both sides love the idea of a distraction. This is simply another diversion, much like the whole Olympics controversy, that allows them to go about screwing us all while we are distracted with this unimportant bullshit. Yes the democrats are hypocrites. Yes the Republicans are hypocrites. Tell us something we don’t already know. My best advice is to see this for what it is….. Further proof that it is time for us to eliminate all 535 of these dumbasses and find 535 people dedicated to reducing federal government’s scope, size, and reach. The great thing is that they continue to give us a new reason to hate them all each and every day.

They think they are in control. I think they are oblivious to the bus that is coming their way. The American people are starting to realize that donkeys and elephants are both bad for us. We are looking for Eagles.

“Nearly 45,000 people die in the United States each year — one every 12 minutes — in large part because they lack health insurance and can not get good care, Harvard Medical School researchers found in an analysis released on Thursday.”

The use of the phrase “in large part” implies speculation. It means they cannot prove their conclusion.

“The Harvard researchers analyzed data on about 9,000 patients tracked by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics through the year 2000.”

What this means is that they tracked 9000 patients from NEARLY 10 YEARS AGO and tried to figure out, out of those 9000 that they tracked, how many of the 9000 died, for what reasons they died, how many of them had no insurance, and how many of the “uninsured deaths” that they were reasonably certain would have been prevented by health coverage.

They then took this number (whatever “this number” was) and extrapolated it to the current “figure” of 46.3 million uninsured people in the US (a figure which most of us, including President Obama, have discounted as incorrect) to come up with their magic number of 45,000 “preventable deaths”.

This is, at best a stretch. The study discounts any changes in medical technology from 2000 to 2009. Further, the study assumes that the 46.3 million uninsured number is accurate. And yet more, the study assumes that the uninsured have LESS access to healthcare now than they did in the year 2000 (they point to “public hospitals and clinics shuttering their doors” as purported evidence of this). However, they do not ACTUALLY demonstrate that the uninsured ACUTALLY have less access to healthcare than they did 9 years ago.

Furthermore, there is no way to prove their assertion, because there is no way to PROVE that someone would have lived any longer than they actually DID LIVE. To say that better medical care would have “prevented a death” is utter nonsense. It MIGHT have prolonged a life (made the death happen at a later date than what it did), but we all know that death, at some point, is currently unpreventable.

You cannot prove that John Doe would have lived 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, or 10 years longer with better access to health services. You can speculate that he PROBABLY would have lived longer, and you can use statistics to show that the odds are he would have lived longer, but you cannot prove it.

Written precisely as a qualified statistican or by someone who knows how various institutions manipulate numbers.

Thank you for taking your time to write out these ALL TOO important details. As most of us know — one can manipulate numbers to say and/or support anything we choose.

One last issue: Every one who subscribes to the notion of the ‘numbers game’ should always apply the reasoning that Peter did; moreover, the source of the data…who is paying them? This is a long and hotly debated issue with universities. Cheers!

“The Harvard study, funded by a federal research grant, was published in the online edition of the American Journal of Public Health. It was released by Physicians for a National Health Program, which favors government-backed or “single-payer” health insurance.”

No Peter (I find myself that quite often) – you are once again, wrong. Several months ago there was reference to a study in one of these blogs regarding gun violence and a study that was done. Whomever posted it referenced the authors. I actually got up off my virtual ass, found the study, read it and analyzed it in the blog. I did point out who it was funded as it can be perceived but not necessarily concluded that there is potential for bias. I was far more harsh on the methodology and conclusions.

Conversely – many months ago USW posted an assumption in battling the climate change debate that (I am paraphrasing) “back in the 1970s all the experts said we were going thru another ice age”. I thought that was odd and wanted to challenge what was then a key assumption used by the right to discredit global warming advocates (“see, they were wrong before”). I found research that did a scholarly analysis from that time period that evidenced that the ‘experts’ were not actually saying anything like that back in the 1970s. Here was a wrinkle – the research was peer reviewed, but by a limited number of reviewers, several of whom could be described as perhaps not independent to the authors. So – once again I got off my virtual ass and looked deeper at the work and found the source material they assessed. I reviewed samples of what they had reviewed and was comfortable they’d made sound conclusions.

So – before you perform any more Peter Pannish leaps in logic, understand that I put some sweat equity into this. There is a difference b/n ‘sourced research’ found on most news media sites and that which is released in the journal space.

For your peace and happiness Peter – I offer that so long as the data and methodology and conclusions are sound, then whom funded or published the study is largely irrelevant.

I am fine with your assertion that no matter who funds the research, as long as the science and the methodology is sound, then it is a “good” study.

However, you are generally VERY quick to point out if Exxon Mobil was the primary funding source for a study, without ever providing your analysis of the science and the methodology within the study.

This indicates to me, at least from your past posts, that you are willing to reject a study funded by Exxon Mobil, simply based upon the funding source, regardless of the science or the methodology.

As long as you are CONSISTENT, I am fine with it.

The next time you point out that any study was funded by a business or a conservative source and offer that as the sole basis for rejection without providing your analysis of the science and the methodology, I will AGAIN point out YOUR Peter Pannish leaps in logic.

I’d also like to see proof of the 44,000 people who die from lack of insurance. How does it rank with cancer and heart disease? If you want a Holocaust think of the aborted babies. It sickens me to just imagine the numbers.

Yes, this is just another distraction. What is happening with cap-and-tax while we are concentrating on more BS? What is happening with ACORN and why hasn’t the AG initiated RICO proceedings. Oh, I know that answer, racism!!

In order to prove the 45,000 figure, they would actually have to track all of the currently uninsured, count how many of them died in the next year, then show that 45,000 of the actual deaths would have definitively been prevented if the people who died had had health insurance.

That is not what the study does, obviously. The study takes 10-year-old numbers based on the tracking of 9000 patients (some of which had insurance and some of which did not), and then makes assumptions based on statistics of how many deaths out of that sub-population (you were uninsured and you died) would have been “prevented” by having insurance. They then extrapolate that nearly 10-year old number to the 46.3 million people in the US who are currently uninsured (a figure which is dubious), and calculate that PROBABLY out of the 46.3 million currently uninsured, 45,000 (0.0971%) will die a death that could be prevented if they had insurance.

So, this is the justification… spend trillions of dollars “fixing” the broken healthcare system because it will “save” about one tenth of one percent (0.0971%) of the uninsured population from a “preventable death”.

The study also makes no mention of the percentage of people WITH INSURANCE that die a “preventable death” every year. I suspect AT LEAST 0.0971% of all people WITH INSURANCE die a “preventable death” every year as well… How much should we spend to put a stop to THAT TRAVESTY?

The games they all play in Congress to try to keep us from looking at the terrible job they are doing there. I thought that camparing this to the Holocaust was nothing short of disgusting. Again they are all wasting air and meanwhile we are watching our country go up in flames!

Ellen you have a marvelous way with words! However and if you don’t mind I’d love to weigh-in on this one as well.

In my humbliest of humble opinions I believe that the politicians in the USA are beginning to feel the weight of the people. Sure there is a ton of rubbish on the back and forth scandalous scale; however, I am seeing some effort by some (one or two!) to actually effectuate change.

I feel this Maine woman in the senate is doing the right thing when she states, “No reading, no vote” and it is about time an elitist finally did something.

Keeping it short, I believe that the American people are getting far too abreast of the b/s spewing from D.C. Furthermore, that’s why I also feel that there are distractions of the greatest magnitude re: racism, gun control, olympics, ad nauseum.

I believe that one possible relevant figure is that in the US (UNDER THE CURRENT HEALTHCARE SYSTEM) out of all men diagnosed with prostate cancer, over 90% have a 5-year life expectancy.

Under the Canadian and European healthcare systems, out of all men diagnosed with prostate cancer, the 5-year survival rate is between 60-80% depending on the country.

There is NO country with socialized medicine which has a 90% 5-year survival rate for men diagnosed with prostate cancer. Only the US fares this well statistically.

Would it not at least SEEM logical then that if we were to go to a socialized system of medicine, we would be potentially condemning a reasonably high percentage of men with prostate cancer to a “preventable death”?

If you buy the arguments in the Harvard study, then you would have to buy this argument as well.

So what is the tradeoff? We prevent UP TO 45,000 “preventable deaths” by going to universal coverage, but we cause a fairly large number of preventable deaths which could possibly be even greater that 45,000???

You diagnose prostrate cancer earlier thats all, the 90% survival comes from a 5 year period beginning when the cancer was diagnosed. In the UK we have a big problem with men not going to doctors, there are posters on billboards begging men to go get checked out for prostrate cancer, when it is spotted it can be too late thereby bringing down the 5 year survival rate.

I thought that nationalized healthcare was supposed to provide more opportunities for preventive care, thus enabling EARLIER diagnosis under a nationalized health care system… at least that is what the supporters of nationalized health care in this country CLAIM…

Pretty damn hard to do preventative care when men arent visiting the doctor. If you go to the doctor and through the examination you are found to have prostrate cancer you will get treated, if you dont go to a doctor and get an examination so they dont spot the cancer you will not get treated and you will die, makes sense no?

The UK is not the only country with a lower 5-year survival rate. ALL countries with national health care programs have a lower 5-year survival rate than the US does, not just for prostate cancer, but for ALL cancers.

So either:

A.) People in countries with national health care are universally lazier than people in the US when it comes to going to the doctor,

or:

B.) National health care systems do NOT, in fact, provide more and better access to preventative care which would enable earlier diagnoses and a better 5-year survival rate.

or:

C.) Even though national health care systems provide better access to preventative care which provides earlier diagnoses, the patient then has to wait a long time between the diagnostic exam, and the surgery or treatment for the cancer, which reduces the 5-year survival rate.

Possibly some combination of all 3 of the above, although A seems like the LEAST likely of all 3 options.

It never should have been removed from the bill – the Democrats that removed simply showed that they have no spine and can be swayed by public opinion that is easily shaped by scare tactics by zealots like Sarah Palin.

Ray I value your opinion as it is somewhat opposite mine and gives me an opportunity to be balanced in my thinking. However, I usually get suspicious when people say “scare tactics”. This could be rephrased to “you are telling the truth so I am going to say your truth is “scare tactics” so as to confuse everyone on the real truth”. This is Washington and politicians we are talking about. Half of what they say is motivated by their own pockets and the other half is outright lies.

Hey Mike – language is a powerful tool – the use of ‘death panels’ was used to obfuscate what should have been relatively lighter debate. I fully recognize it was twisted to submarine the larger aspect of the effort. Your last sentence is pretty much on the money.

If what was removed from the bill actually bore no resemblance whatsoever to “Death Panels”, then why was it removed?

You can CLAIM that they removed it simply to appease the “zealots who believed Sarah Palin’s BS”

OR

You can CLAIM that Sarah Palin’s analysis was too close to the actual facts for comfort, so they figured they better get that section the heck out of there before too many people realized that Palin was correct.

The second claim is at least equally as likely as the first. Probably MORE likely. If the language in the bill could be CONCLUSIVELY SHOWN to be something completely other than what Palin was claiming it to be, they could have EASILY and CLEARLY explained it, and instead of painting her as a Loon, they could have PROVED she was a Loon.

By taking the language out, they tacitly admitted that she was right.

They have a clear majority in both the house and the senate. They have no need to remove the language to “appease a fringe, idiotic lunatic”. The only reason they have to remove the language is that what the “fringe, idiotic lunatic” was claiming was probably dangerously close to the truth.

Its becoming more and more pointless to argue with you since you fail to acknowledge any argument that differs even slightly from your own thinking.

You can go on and on about fringes and this is possible and that is possible – what is obvious for me is that while they have a majority and could have strong-armed a progressive bill through Congress, the Democrats allowed, as they usually do, sideshows to develop in the process. Since they are so sensitive to even marginal sways in rhetoric and opinion, they quickly acquiesce to something as ridiculous as Death Panels because it is easier for them to say “not worth our breath to argue” than to try and debate perfect storm conclusions that are given merit simply because someone with popularity makes them (and not to state the obvious Peter – but the same goddamn thing you go breathless accusing POTUS, rightfully so at times, of also doing!).

Bottom line Peter – most of those Dems are cowards and did not want to engage the cult of Sarah.

Thas’ ok.. I like Ray and he and Mrs Ray are beholden to me for their nice yard on occasion. I had him going so bad on day, I think he did his neighborhood….can’t remember but he is ok. Strange like me, tho…but ok. Neither he nor I are trainable and that drives BF nuts.

You can compare Grayson to the Republican’s who have said on the House floor that the Democrat’s Healthcare Bill(s) will kill people. None of the Republicans has apologized or been censured or had a “resolution of disapproval”.

The Democrats are in-charge of the House and could have passed some resolution against the Republicans, but they didn’t.

I don’t approve of any of these types of statements. They deflect from the issue of debating and passing good Health Care Reform.

Yes, I can compare the two. I don’t care what rule Wilson broke. I didn’t think he was wrong for what he did because it broke a “rule” of the inane House of Representatives. Their House rules don’t mean crap to me. I think Wilson was an idiot for saying something stupid. And he was punished because they could get away with it. If you want to believe that they were merely upholding the decorum of the House, that is your right. But I am well aware it was a political game that they play. Not a single one of those idiots in Congress care a bit about “rules”. They all disgrace the office and their position on a daily basis.

And I did also compare him to all the other inane rhetoric that the members on both side are guilty of. Stop making excuses for the childish actions of Congress. I stopped making excuses for both sides. As I stated, understand why both sides do what they do. But I don’t approve of either. Too many people are making excuses or offering some sort of defense, just like you are doing here. Stop trying to find a technical reason why it is not the same thing and start realizing that it was wrong. Period. It was wrong what Wilson did. It was wrong what Grayson did. They are both jackasses. Their parties are both corrupt and out of control. And things will remain the same as long as there are people willing to challenge the idea of calling them idiots.

Hi US, hope all is well, please give my best to Mrs. US — I was glad to hear she was up and around. You’ve been busy lately – how’s US canine? I found the following earlier tonight – — I’ve been researching ‘law’ and ‘rule of law’ and thought of this when you replied to Todd. For what it’s worth, I like Rep Grayson, he’s been one of the toughest on the financial hearings, actually asking Mr. Bernake where the money went.

While the United States is freer and more democratic than many countries, it is not, I think, either as free or as democratic as we are expected to believe, and becomes rapidly less so. Indeed we seem to be specialists in maintaining the appearance without having the substance. Regarding the techniques of which, a few thoughts:

1. Free speech does not exist in America. We all know what we can’t say and about whom we can’t say it.

2. A democracy run by two barely distinguishable parties is not in fact a democracy.

A parliamentary democracy allows expression of a range of points of view: An ecological candidate may be elected, along with a communist, a racial-separatist, and a libertarian. These will make sure their ideas are at least heard. By contrast, the two-party system prevents expression of any ideas the two parties agree to suppress. How much open discussion do you hear during presidential elections of, for example, race, immigration, abortion, gun control, and the continuing abolition of Christianity? These are the issues most important to most people, yet are quashed.

The elections do however allow allow the public a sense of participation while having the political importance of the Superbowl.

3. Large jurisdictions discourage autonomy. If, say, educational policy were set in small jurisdictions, such as towns or counties, you could buttonhole the mayor and have a reasonable prospect of influencing your children’s schools. If policy is set at the level of the state, then to change it you have to quit your job, marshal a vast campaign costing a fortune, and organize committees in dozens of towns. It isn’t practical. In America, local jurisdictions set taxes on real estate and determine parking policy. Everything of importance is decided remotely.

4. Huge unresponsive bureaucracies somewhere else serve as political flywheels, insulating elected officials from the whims of the populace. Try calling the federal Department of Education from Wyoming. Its employees are anonymous, salaried, unaccountable, can’t be fired, and don’t care about you. Many more of them than you might believe are affirmative-action hires and probably can’t spell Wyoming. You cannot influence them in the slightest. Yet they influence you.

5. For our increasingly centralized and arbitrary government, the elimination of potentially competitive centers of power has been, and is, crucial. This is one reason for the aforementioned defanging of the churches: The faithful recognize a power above that of the state, which they might choose to obey instead of Washington. The Catholic Church in particular, with its inherent organization, was once powerful. It has been brought to heel.

Similarly the elimination of states’ rights, now practically complete, put paid to another potential source of opposition. Industry, in the days of J. P. Morgan politically potent, has been tamed by regulation and federal contracts. The military in the United States has never been politically active. The government becomes the only game available.

And is determined to remain so. Any attempt to weaken the central power will arouse powerful hostility. For example, the persecution of those engaged in home-schooling has nothing to with concern for the young. The public schools have little interest in education and for the most part seem to have little idea of what it is. The hostility to home-schooling is simply the response of those with a monopoly of power to the specter of superior competition.

The elections do however allow the public a sense of democratic participation while having the political importance of the Superbowl. That is, elections serve chiefly to keep the people from noticing the absence of democracy. This is a remarkable concept, of great governmental utility.

6. Paradoxically, increasing the power of groups who cannot threaten the government strengthens the government: They serve as counterbalances to those who might challenge the central authority. For example, the white and male-dominated culture of the United States, while not embodied in an identifiable organization, for some time remained strong. The encouragement of dissension by empowerment of blacks, feminists, and homosexuals, and the importing of inassimilable minorities, weakens what was once the cultural mainstream.

7. The apparent government isn’t the real government. The real power in America resides in what George Will once called the “permanent political class,” of which the formal government is a subset. It consists of the professoriate, journalists, politicians, revolving appointees, high-level bureaucrats and so on who slosh in and out of formal power. Most are unelected, believe the same things, and share a lack of respect for views other than their own.

It is they, to continue the example of education, who write the textbooks your children use, determine how history will be rewritten, and set academic standards — all without the least regard for you. You can do nothing about it.

8. The US government consists of five branches which are, in rough order of importance, the Supreme Court, the media, the presidency, the bureaucracy, and Congress.

The function of the Supreme Court, which is both unanswerable and unaccountable, is to impose things that the congress fears to touch. That is, it establishes programs desired by the ruling political class which could not possibly be democratically enacted. While formally a judicial organ, the Court is in reality our Ministry of Culture and Morals. It determines policy regarding racial integration, abortion, pornography, immigration, the practice of religion, which groups receive special privilege, and what forms of speech shall be punished.

9. The media have two governmental purposes. The first is to prevent discussion and, to the extent possible, knowledge of taboo subjects. The second is to inculcate by endless indirection the values and beliefs of the permanent political class. Thus for example racial atrocities committed by whites against blacks are widely reported, while those committed by blacks against whites are concealed. Most people know this at least dimly. Few know the degree of management of information.

10. Control of television conveys control of the society. It is magic. This is such a truism that we do not always see how true it is. The box is ubiquitous and inescapable. It babbles at us in bars and restaurants, in living rooms and on long flights. It is the national babysitter. For hours a day most Americans watch it.

Perhaps the key to cultural control is that people can’t not watch a screen. It is probably true that stupid people would not watch intelligent television, but it is certainly true that intelligent people will watch stupid television. Any television, it seems, is preferable to no television. As people read less, the lobotomy box acquires semi-exclusive rights to their minds.

Television doesn’t tell people what to do. It shows them. People can resist admonition. But if they see something happening over and over, month after month, if they see the same values approvingly portrayed, they will adopt both behavior and values. It takes years, but it works. To be sure it works, we put our children in front of the screen from infancy.

11. Finally, people do not want freedom. They want comfort, two hundred channels on the cable, sex, drugs, rock-and-roll, an easy job and an SUV. No country with really elaborate home-theater has ever risen in revolt. An awful lot of people secretly like being told what to do. We would probably be happier with a king.

But if you’re BLAMING me for you posting this, I’ll take the credit!! 🙂

Very interesting – especially since it was written 4 1/2 years ago – before the previous presidential election.

He hit a lot of things on the head, but one thing he missed was the rise of the internet. I wonder how he would fit the internet into:

8. The US government consists of five branches which are, in rough order of importance, the Supreme Court, the media, the presidency, the bureaucracy, and Congress.

The internet is certainly part of the media, but it goes against his description in #9. In some ways it heightens the media (news websites, etc), but its also tearing it down by allowing people access to many alternate sources. We can all attest to that here.

Same goes for TV – the internet is changing the impact of TV. It still shapes a lot of our culture, and websites can reinforce the TV message, but alternate websites can challenge the message…

Hi Todd, the “you can’t compare” answered with “yes I can compare” made me think of #1 — but I take little responsibility and place less blame for random thought trains that late at night… I was curious about Mr. Reed too, the page had a link to a site for him, but it wasn’t active. I just googled him and found http://www.fredoneverything.net/, haven’t gone thru it. I’d like to see an expansion of his thoughts on education.

Like you, i wonder if he has changed his thoughts on #8’s government branches — but, since my focus is more on the economy, I wondered if Government Sachs would now be on the list. If you have the time, check out the link to the site where I found this — it has serveral thought provoking pieces.

And by the way… glad to see you still lurk around, even with my lack of “journalistic integrity”. You are always welcome. I hope you will continue to offer your insight. It is usually well thought out and informative.

” The American people are starting to realize that donkeys and elephants are both bad for us. We are looking for Eagles.” I like the article, but I like this statement a lot. Maybe the Eagle can be the symbol for the VDLG?

House leadership may be attempting to undermine an effort to require that you get to read all legislation and conference reports online for three days before they can be voted on.

House Resolution 554, sponsored by Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.) would require a change of the House Rules to this effect – but the bill has not moved for weeks. A discharge petition is being circulated to bring the bill to the floor. If 218 House Members sign the discharge petition for House Resolution 554, the Resolution will be brought to the House floor for consideration. As of Wednesday, October 1, 181 members had signed the petition.

In what appears to be an effort to co-opt this petition drive, Rep. Tim Walz (D-Minn.) is circulating a “Dear Colleague” letter that calls on Leadership to merely “strive to meet” a standard already in the House rules which technically would provide for a review period.

However, the big problem with that is that the rules that are in place obviously are not working, as we have seen with the way the “stimulus” and the “cap-and-trade” bills were rushed through Congress with little debate. The letter also provides for a loophole big enough to drive a truck through by stating:

We ask that the Leadership of the House strive to meet this established standard
with all major legislation, with only the rarest and most necessary of exceptions.

In other words, we’re all for transparency, except when we aren’t!?

Only binding legislation will force lawmakers to take time for debate and allow the American people to see bills and voice their opinions on them before they are voted into law.

Tell your member of Congress to sign the Discharge Petition for H.Res. 554 today!

It is necessary for him who lays out a state and arranges laws for it to presuppose that all men are evil and that they are always going to act according to the wickedness of their spirits whenever they have free scope”

Niccolo Machiavelli

Read that again – it requires government to believe ALL MEN are EVIL for the government to justify itself.

Ask these questions –

Are ALL men evil?
If government is made of men, aren’t those men evil?

Evil…spelled backwards… is LIVE…..I suggest we all sit down to a platter of fajitas, a gallon of Top Shelf Margueritas, corn tortillas and some set your mouth on fire hot sauce, in the shade and figure out how to blame Bush for losing the Chicago Olympics.

Probably…..Oprah has to now figure out how to spin it. It is bound to be racists as well…it could not be that Chicago is arguably the most corrupt city in America and one of the most dangerous? But I am still sure that it will be spun as a valiant effort to salvage the US from the world opinion despite the fact that over 50% of Chicago did not want it anyway.

Wait, I think I get….soooo..to extrapolate further….since most Danish are European and, therefore Caucasian, and Obama is our first 1/2 black President and we agree with the Olympic Committee that Chicago was not the place, then we are racists. I think I understood what you thought you think you meant you said. Too much of a stretch?

And you are surprised? The USA is despised, not because of its forays ( where I agree that some are pretty far fetched ) but primarily because of its success. ( I know, I know, I will be lambasted on here for that ) But I can see no other reason. we have done more for the world, the poor, the wretched, the refuse, aiding,saving Europe’s ass TWICE in this century, helping to rid the world of Japanese Imperialism, Nazi Dictatorship, and various other bad guys. We are viewed as arrogant…and we rightfully are…selfish, because we believe in independent thinking and refuse to pay the world…hell, you know the list as well as I. We, the USA, has nothing…NOTHING…to apologize for…. Nothing at all. Let’s pull back and let the world take care of itself. Let’s go back to what made America the best country in the world….without the mistakes. Ahhh… I can dream.

I think both sides are acting like a bunch of children on the play ground calling each other names, and the grown-ups have to step in. Trouble with that is, I don’t see any. Maybe before they speak, they should think. Oh, wait a minute, I forgot who I was talking about.

The absolute best things accomplished by congress are when they accomplish ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

If you ARE going to vote in 2010, try very hard to achieve an outcome which will result in total governmental gridlock.

I think a Democratic majority of about 52-48 is about the absolute best that we could hope for. If we could get enough Republicans in the house to give them a bare 2-5 vote majority there, that would be ideal.

If you ARE going to vote, vote GRIDLOCK 2010.

The best way to prevent the government from doing evil may well be attempting to set it up so it is unable to accomplish anything whatsoever.

Of course this assumes that neither side will “cave and compromise” in order to “get something accomplished”, so it still is not the IDEAL solution.

If we could get the government to grind to a halt then more people might begin to realize exactly how unnecessary the beast is.

> > THE VICAR’S CHICKENS
> >
> >
> > The priest in a small Irish village loved his chickens
> that he kept in the coop behind the church.
> >
> > One Sunday morning before mass, he went to feed the
> birds and discovered that the cock was missing.
> >
> > He knew about the cock fights in the village, so he
> decided to question his parishioners in church.
> >
> > During mass, he asked his congregation, “Has anybody got a cock?”
> >
> > All the men stood up.
> >
> > “No, no, that wasn’t what I meant. Has anybody seen a cock?”
> >
> > All the women stood up.
> >
> > “No, no, that wasn’t what I meant either. Has anybody seen a cock
> > that doesn’t belong to them?”
> >
> > Half the women stood up !
> >
> > “No, no, no, that wasn’t what I meant. What I really really mean is,
> > has anybody seen MY cock?”
> >
> > Sixteen altar boys and two priests stood up.

Earlier this month and despite the public scrutiny over the voter fraud and felony criminal activity associated with ACORN, the Department of Homeland Security went ahead and granted $997,402 to ACORN under the FY 2008 Fire Prevention and Safety Program.

What the sam hell does ACORN have to do with fire safety? Is Richard Pryor the spokesperson for ACORN and fire safety? (side joke for those old enough to understand this humor)

Getting really tired of Washington being completely asleep at the wheel. There are so many aspects of this that is just wrong. Why is Homeland security (FEMA ?) giving out money for fire prevention? Makes no sense. Why is ACORN getting the money? Makes no sense. I guess they need a cool million to tell the pimps not to put candles in the under age girls trick rooms.

I agree it blows my mind. It is the same as why are we giving large amounts of money to the same defense contractors that continue to get busted for fraud? We are bleeding money when we continue to do this.

Just to be different, I am actually going to give ACORN the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Let’s assume that ACORN really does advocate for the poor, especially minorities. Let’s further say that many poor minorities live in crappy housing (such as public housing) and probably do not have working smoke detectors.

Perhaps the government feels that ACORN will do a good job of procuring smoke detectors, distributing them to poor minorities who do not have smoke detectors, and perhaps even helping them to install their smoke detectors and showing them how to properly check them on a periodic basis.

I am against ACORN on the whole, and I am against government intervention in general, so overall I think the whole thing is silly.

However, there are probably SOME good people who work for ACORN, and MAYBE just MAYBE what I speculated above will actually happen…

“Anyone with needs to be prayed over, come forward, to the front at the
altar,” the Preacher says.

Bubba gets in line, and when it’s his turn, the preacher asks: “Bubba, what
do you want me to pray about for you.”

Bubba replies: “Preacher, I need you to pray for my hearing.” The preacher
puts one finger in Bubba’s ear, and he places the other hand on top of
Bubba’s head and prays and prays and prays, he prays a blue streak for
Bubba.

After a few minutes, the Preacher removes his hands, stands back and
asks,”Bubba, how is your hearing now?”

Little Mary Margaret was not the best student in Catholic
school. Usually she slept through the class.
One day her teacher, a Nun, called on her while she was
sleeping. “Tell me Mary Margaret, who created the universe?” When Mary
Margaret didn’t stir, little Paulie who was her friend sitting behind her,
took his pencil and jabbed her in the rear. “God Almighty!” shouted Mary
Margaret. The Nun said, “Very good” and continued teaching her class.

A little later the Nun asked Mary Margaret, “Who is our Lord
and Savior?” But Mary didn’t stir from her slumber. Once again, Paulie came
to her rescue and stuck Mary Margaret in the butt. “Jesus Christ!!!”
shouted Mary Margaret and the Nun once again said, “Very good,” and Mary
Margaret fell back asleep.

The Nun asked her a third question…”What did Eve say to
Adam after she had her twenty-third child?” Again, Paulie came to the
rescue. This time Mary Margaret jumped up and shouted, “If you stick that
damn thing in me one more time, I’ll break it in half!”
The nun fainted………..

A short guy is sitting at a bar just staring at his drink for half an hour when this big, trouble-making biker steps next to him, grabs his drink, gulps it down in one swig and then turns to the guy with a menacing stare as if to say, ‘What’cha gonna do about it?”

The poor little guy starts crying.
“Come on man, I was just giving you a hard time,” the biker says. “I didn’t think you’d CRY. I can’t stand to see a man crying.”
“This is the worst day of my life,” says the little guy between sobs. “I can’t do anything right. I overslept and was late to an important meeting, so my boss fired me. When I went to the parking lot, I found my car was stolen and I don’t have any insurance. I left my wallet in the cab I took home.” He continues, crying even harder. “Then I found my wife in bed with the gardener and my dog bit me. So, I came to this bar trying to work up the courage to put an end to my life, and then you show up and drank the damn poison.”

Al Gore is hiking in the woods, trying to re-connect with nature, wondering what the world will be like for his children and grandchildren. He comes upon a man hugging a tree, completely naked. Gore is forced to comment, my that looks strange. The man replies, yes it does, but this allows me to feel the connection between nature and mankind, and brings me inner peace, you should try it.

After some persuading, Al agrees, strips naked, and puts his arms around the tree. The stranger then handcuffs Gore to the tree, picks ups his pants, wallet, etc, and walks off laughing.

Poor Al stands there for hours, wondering what fate has in store for him. Another stranger walks up to him, asking what he is doing?
Al tells his story of being tricked, robbed, and left to die. Shaking his head, the stranger starts un-buckling his pants,saying, this just hasn’t been your day.

News reporter on CNN immediately following the elimination of Chicago from consideration after the FIRST ROUND of voting:

“Chicago is OUT??????… Chicago is OUT????… Madrid is still IN??? Tokyo is still IN??? Chicago is OUT???? Wait a minute?!?! Let’s go back to the current audio from Copenhagen….”

The blatant disbelief in what he, himself was saying was priceless. Maybe he thought that going back to the current audio from Copenhagen was going to reveal some huge mistake and put Chicago back in the running so that reality would again conform to his beliefs!

Read a script of his speech; he actually managed to bash Bush! I don’t know who will have a harder time handling it, Michelle and Oprah, who made such a sacrifice to go there, BO, the rock star, the Chicago Daley machine who will now have to find other corrupt ways to make money, or the Media, that their beloved Messiah didn’t send them thrills up their legs like they were expecting!

Kathy, Kathy, Kathy…how cynical you are. It is NOT 9.8%. Shame on you. Are you forgetting to add the people who just dropped off the unemployment rolls because their U/E ran out…therefore, not reported as unemployed any longer? The true unemployment rate is said to be around 16% maybe even higher.

I am actually sorry that Chicago lost the Olympics because it could have meant some were employed. However, I do have a problem with the corruption of Chicago and no amount of employment can compensate for what would have happened there. I cannot accept corruption in the name of employment there or anywhere.

If Obama did promise the Daley machine he was going to get the Olympics for Chicago and Obama failed to deliver on that promise, I see the potential for some very real and verifiable stories relating to corruption involving Barack Obama to be leaked by someone within the Chicago machine. Of course, none of this corruption will be able to be related to Daley in any way, except maybe through very minor city officials, which will give Daley “plausible deniability”.

I think it is very possible that someone in Chicago is going to throw Obama under the bus. Not like in the old days where he would literally be thrown under a bus, but new-style, where the rest of his political career is suddenly evaporated.

No wonder the world hates us. How arrogant of Chicagoans it was to think that they were the only real choice or something…Like BHO was just gonna walk up there and take it. Did anyone see how happy and proud the people in Rio were? Maybe they deserve it more than Chi-town. Besides the US hosted it in Atlanta a few years ago. Not one nation in South America has ever hosted the olympics.

USW said: “The American people are starting to realize that donkeys and elephants are both bad for us. We are looking for Eagles.”

Ah, how I wish it were true. I’d even take your paradigm of a very small government over either party right now. And, of course, I’d prefer social democracy to anything else, but I think we remain on the very fringes of it all. While independent enrollment continues to grow (at the expense of both parties), the problem is they still tend to pick and choose what they conceive as the lesser of two evils.

I was a devout democrat until Clinton. I turned to Bush II twice and last election is was Nader for me. I refuse to vote for either major party anymore and I know my vote is completely wasted (and beneficial to the more conservative candidates now because I agree more with the left).

I certainly think a revolution to make government vansihingly small is highly unlikely in the foreseeable future.

However, there is a lot of anger at the government right now, and the primary reason for that anger is that many percieve that the government is spending far too much money which it does not have on things which it really doesnt need to be spending money on at all, given the current state of the economy. This is not really a “right” or “left” phenomenon. Even Kathy Griffin is on the bandwagon, and I certainly wouldn’t call her a “traditional conservative”.

I think that it is quite possible that the general American populace is going to DEMAND at least a somewhat smaller, more “manageable” government, and they are going to do it soon. There is a realization by the general populace that something is very wrong. When “the masses” realize that something is very wrong, they do begin to demand change.

They demanded change, which got Obama elected. The only changes they have seen so far is a push farther in the direction that most of them did NOT want to go.

I am not sure whether we will be able to call what comes next a “revolution”, but the people are AGAIN going to demand “change” and they are going to keep demanding it, until they get the change that they think they want.

If neither party can provide the change that they think that they want (which they can’t), then we might actually see a real revolution. Whether this happens in the “foreseeable future” or not I cannot say.

Peter, I wish you were right but I really believe this country (that no longer reads) will stay with the lesser of two evil vote (whichever party they deem is less evil). I really do wish you were right. it’s why I supported Palin when she first entered the fiasco (my feeling was put somebody who can run a pretzel stand at a profit in charge).

Sounds like the same thing we keep hearing, if you can’t argue against their facts, attack their character.

“So what is the theme of our history lesson? It is a story of remarkable volume and utter weakness. It is the story of media mavens who claim to represent a hidden majority but who in fact represent a mere niche — even in the Republican Party. It is a story as old as “The Wizard of Oz,” of grand illusions and small men behind the curtain.”

Here’s the thing with a small and very restricted Federal Govt, or even no Federal govt, in a country based on liberty.

You and your socialist left friends can all move to Jersey and N.Y. and you can get Nader to move and become your governor or mayor, depending on how many of you there are.

That was the beauty of the original design. You can live with your tribe and I can live with my tribe.

And when someone comes along and tries to invade your tribes area we will come help kick their ass. Cause you see we ALL hold one value among us to be greater than all others. That value is the FREEDOM to associate with whom we wish. Your FREEDOM is as SACRED as our FREEDOM, even if you use yours to choose a form of slavery.

And we also do this in hopes that someday you will repent and join the rest of us as a free people.

I don’t blame everything on Bush, but those deregulated banks collapsed under his watch. Obama hasn’t done a thing to fix them so he gets the depression to follow. But that less taxing the rich sure turned up a bust right before Bush left.

The deregulated banks that collapsed under Bush’s watch were deregulated under Clinton though 🙂

McCain and others in the Republican party actually tried to push for MORE regulation of Fannie and Freddie under Bush, but Franks and Dodd resisted.

Neither party is innocent in the least in what caused the latest economic collapse. I think many are beginning to fully realize that.

Look at the way Obama, Franks, Dodd, the Fed, and the Treasury have all gone out of their way to ensure that the big banks remain solvent while allowing all of the small banks to fail and the people to continue to lose their businesses, jobs, and homes.

He is not materially different from Bush, at least when it comes to being in Goldman Sach’s pocket.

He didn’t have my support. Like I said, he gets the next round of blame (recession/depression) … but … but … but there’s no denying Bush’s input to this mess. He wanted deregulation and got it. He wanted a reduction in taxes and he got it. He wanted two wars and he got them.

Even you have to admit, that it was nothing compared to now. At least people had jobs, were able to save some money, was able to afford things, not nearly as many people were losing their homes like they are now. Can’t blame Bush for it all there. And, he didn’t spend the money like good ol Obama is doing either.

And just where are these jobs that Obama promised? That’s what I’d like to know. How can he have created so many jobs, with the unemployment so high?

I think the unemployment now is the result of everything Bush asked for and got (and no regulation of the financial markets) … but Obama is on the same exact path (he hasn’t changed a thing) and will get his share of the blame soon enough.

He sure is looking like an empty suit after flying to Europe for nothing. He’s a bust, no doubt about it.

Italians huh, you do know that I’m married to one.LOL Charlie, who that we had a book writer on board. Seriously though, I think I will go to B & N and go check you out.

What were the name of the Off Broadway plays, if you don’t mind me asking?

I love reading and watching about the mob, and how certain people got started in that.

Let me tell you a story that my father in law told us. He said that back in the early 30’s I believe, that he was a driver for somebody, but he never mentioned any names. He said it was a way to make money back then.

He also said that during the alcohol prohibition, he used to make bath tub beer. Got a knock on the door one day, and was told to quit making and selling it, if he wanted to continue living. He said he guesses he was taking profits away from them.. So, he quit. Didn’t want to take any chances on anything happening to him. He told us quite a few stories from that time.

Jim’s dad was born in Italy, a little town called Atina, ever hear of it? He came over by boat when he was about 11 or 12 years old. He had like 12 kids in his family and his mother didn’t work, and his dad found whatever work he could.

I really enjoyed listening to stories like that, and what happened and all. His dad passed away in 1995 at the age of 89, one year shy of his 90th, and if he had lived to 90, the 3 boys were going to get him a stripper. Can you imagine a stripper at his age? But he did like the ladies, especially the younger ones.

He was a great cook too. Always made something Italian, didn’t matter what.

Which, by the way, my daughter had her first gun at 5 also. Son’s first weapon was a 4-10 double barrel Ivers/Johnson, then a .22 lever action Remington rifle. My daughter learned on the 4-10 after that and the same .22 after my son graduated to a 20 gauge Ithaca pump at 7 and a .243 Winchester. Now they both are avid hunters and my grand daughter at 5 will learn on the same 4-10….can’t wait.

One year ago, Congress was busy passing the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), a $700 billion bailout of the banking and financial industry. With the nation’s economy teetering on the edge of an abyss, then Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke met with a small group of congressional leaders to warn them of the dire consequences of failing to take monumental action.

Wouldn’t it have been nice to have been a fly on the wall at the meeting – a few tweaks to your portfolio and a lot of the painful losses most investors faced this past year could have been avoided. Well, there is evidence that Congressmen who were in that meeting did just that, pulling their investments out of funds that eventually tanked by as much as 50 percent.

Though it is illegal for corporate insiders to trade on their knowledge of their own companies, there is no such restriction on using political knowledge to trade for personal gain. And as Washington, DC becomes the center of the nation’s financial and banking universe, political information is an increasingly valuable commodity.

But this is nothing new. Evidence shows that for years members of Congress have routinely beat the market average by as much as 1 percent per month. Alan Ziobrowski, a business professor at Georgia State University, conducted a painstaking study of members’ financial disclosures and found that investments by members of Congress beat the market on average by one half of one percent per month; senators did even better, beating the market by a full percentage point per month.

Maybe this doesn’t seem like much, but an extra six or twelve-percent gain per year is not only an enormous advantage over the average investor, it’s so good as to be considered “abnormal returns” according to Ziobrowski. In fact, your average member of Congress did as well as or better than your average corporate insider did when trading his own company’s stock.

At the moment, there is no law preventing politicians, their staffs, or even lobbyists from using their insider information when it comes to stock trading. In fact, the financial information coming out of Washington has become a sellable commodity. For instance, Michael Bagley, a former congressional staffer recently started the OSINT group, which sells insider political information to hedge funds.

At least one piece of legislation would address this situation by making it illegal for members of congress to benefit from the insider information to which they are privy. The Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act, sponsored by Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA), would change the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to prevent purchase of stock by holders of nonpublic information.

This is just one idea put forward to deal with this issue. A recent hearing by the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Hearing entitled “Preventing Unfair Trading by Government Officials” brought up alternative approaches to deal with this issue and suggested substantive changes that would improve the STOCK Act, including real time disclosure by members of their stock purchases and sales.

We rely on congress to confront and solve the nation’s biggest problems, but that does not mean that these members should be allowed to use their position to gain from the market at much higher rates than the rest of us can ever hope to achieve. This is just another example of political power resulting in personal gain, and a solution must be found to help prevent this activity in the future.

With Democrats pushing forward with a return to big government and Republicans speeding down the path toward irrelevance by becoming the party of “no,” it’s time for a party that actually affirms what most Americans believe in.

It’s time for the American Capitalist Party.

Okay, so maybe the name could be revised or improved (suggestions welcome!), but, folks, there can be no question that the needs of We the People, We the Electorate, We the Target Market are simply not being met by the two main parties.

The Tea Party movement and the powerful uprisings in those health care town halls point to the fact that when it comes right down to it, Americans are all for situational help from the government when the going gets tough, but they don’t want it institutionalized for the long haul.

The American Capitalist Party would be built around this fact and upon the ideals and dreams that still propel this nation of ours. Socialism and big government have been tried and shown to have failed again and again, yet neither party –and yes, this means Republicans, too, since they oversaw some of the worst deficit spending of this past decade– is actively fighting for fiscal responsibility and the maintenance of the kind of market place fair play that made us great.

In marketing, the most important element of a successful brand is its ability to express its core characteristics for everyone to understand. No confusion. No doubt as to what it stands for.

Neither Democrats nor Republicans have been clear about what they stand for. Tey are ignoring the needs of so many of us. A good marketer seizes the opportunity to meet currently unmet needs with a targeted product or service. Meeting an urgent need is what the American Capitalist Party can do.

First, the American Capitalist Party tells us all we need to know with its name.– Capitalism and the conditions that allow capitalism to flourish are what this party will be about.

What are those conditions? A respect for the rule of law; limited government; low taxes (both personal and corporate); effective support of infrastructure to promote economic growth (i.e., no pork projects, thank you very much Boss Tweed); advocate term limits for House and Senate members (12 and 18 years max, respectively) to help break up the enthroned political class; a belief in and support of the freedom and meritocracy that has made America great and given rise to Presidents Reagan, Clinton and Obama; and, finally, very middle-of-the-road social values (for example, we would encourage family values but allow civil unions for gays).

There’s a need for a government that knows its place and a political party that reflects what most of us believe. One that helps when help is needed but for the most part stays out of people’s lives. The American Capitalist Party. It’s time has come.

And remember, the business of politics is always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.

The Capitalist Party sounds good in theory, but what would it be in practice? Wouldn’t it end up being pretty much like what we have now?? It doesn’t address the underlying problem of how we came to be where we are. Without that, I’m afraid we’ll soon find ourselves back to our current position….

Talking about how many die each year in America, I read 36,000 from regular flu aong, so many are not well to begin with, weight, alcohol, smoking and much more. I am old, 85, disabled veteran of U.S. Marine corps. ww2, and if I did soon, ok, as I hurt all over, arthritis, osteoporosis, crushed vertebrae, and my VA doctor said the vertebrae would never come back, lost 5 inches in height, but I havn’t seen a doctor 8 8 months, I go to VA clinic and guess that is my healthcare. Judy you have some funny jokes. thanks. Much as I dislike Obama, I was very happy this a.m. when I heard he had lost the Olympics to Rio, he thinks if he gives a speech everybody will be under his spell, he has a voice that can cast a spell, so I put him on mute, remember Hilter had eyes that Germans were afraid to look into, maybe another dictator. Visit Defend Our Freedoms, Grand Jury site, tells a lot more. I got to stop my back is killing me. God Bless all

you speak of looking out your window and seeing a lot of immoral people…Big contradiction here. You seem to live in a very safe place and be surrounded by good, moral people. Why then, do you have such disregard for people in general?

Yes, a BIG contradiction. But I was referring to different things (and the comments were in separate posts – you weren’t suppose to notice! 😉 )

My neighborhood – safe, moral
Many places I travel too (mostly for business) – not so safe or moral. I get warnings not to go certain areas, etc, especially since I’m a ‘small town’ guy who probably stands out in the ‘big city’ (it’s the straw hat and over-alls that give me away!).

So maybe its that there are pockets of good and bad in this country. I looked for and found a good one to live in, but business forces me to travel to the not so good ones…

Or I could just be a Judgmental Hypocrite. I’m not qualified to make that distinction…

Speaking of which, are you ready for the big showdown on Monday night? I really hope our Green and Gold can take care of that Purple #4!

I grew up in Green Bay, two blocks from Lambaeu Field. Went to most of the home games in the 1970’s and early 80’s. Sold Coke in the stands for many seasons. The rub is the Packers weren’t much of a team then – only made the play-offs twice.

Maybe it’s “overload” from back then, or the fact that I’d rather play any sport than watch any sport, but I don’t follow the Packers too close. Hope they win, but not much else.

I’ve never been a big Favre fan. He makes great plays, but also great screw-ups. And his retire/unretire/retire crap really showed me how immature he is. Can’t live without being in the spotlight. I’m really sick of “Packer fans” who say they still love the Pack, but will cheer for Favre when they play the Vikings…

So this is one of the two weeks this season when I really hope the Packers win – and cream the Vikings! I’m really looking forward to the Packers secondary helping Favre…extend his NFL Interceptions Record…

Sounds good to me, but why stop with just her? How about that other one, whack a mole, but instead, call it whack a government? Put all their little heads popping up and down, then whack the crap out of them. Extra points for Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. What do ya think?

Judy S. My mom was born in Italy (small town in the stocks outside Naples). My dad is Sicilian. Of course they divorced 🙂

You’re in quotes:

“Italians huh, you do know that I’m married to one.LOL Charlie, who that we had a book writer on board. Seriously though, I think I will go to B & N and go check you out.”

Now, that could explain my marital dilemma. I’m married 4 x’s and never to an Italian!

“What were the name of the Off Broadway plays, if you don’t mind me asking?”

Coffee Wagon (my first); Mr. Ronnie’s Confession (a one act) and Double or Nothing. Nothing happened with them after they were showcased. That is a very tough world to make it in, the theatre (although it’s where my heart remains as a writer–I write dialogue driven novels).

“I love reading and watching about the mob, and how certain people got started in that.”

Well, my family was somewhat involved, but for me it was simple. I was working 2 legit jobs and killing myself trying to support 2 households. (What did Willie Sutton say about robbing banks? It’s where the money was. I felt the same way (but wasn’t a bank robber—I was very small potatoes but there was good money in it if one didn’t get too sure of oneself). I’m sure you saw Goodfellas … well, that’s EXACTLY where I grew up (2 blocks from the Bamboo Lounge) and I know a lot of those guys (mostly their children, etc.). That was the Luchese family … In another great mob movie, Casino, they mention how Tony Spilatro created holes in the dessert–my mother’s first cousin unfortunately was temporarily buried in one of those holes.

“He also said that during the alcohol prohibition, he used to make bath tub beer. Got a knock on the door one day, and was told to quit making and selling it, if he wanted to continue living. He said he guesses he was taking profits away from them.. So, he quit. Didn’t want to take any chances on anything happening to him. He told us quite a few stories from that time.”

That was one of the consequences of the mob – they became bullies and instead of protecting those in their own community (what they had started out as), they became parasites.

“Jim’s dad was born in Italy, a little town called Atina, ever hear of it? He came over by boat when he was about 11 or 12 years old. He had like 12 kids in his family and his mother didn’t work, and his dad found whatever work he could.”

A great immigrant story (and why I’m not a huge fan of welfare myself).

“I really enjoyed listening to stories like that, and what happened and all. His dad passed away in 1995 at the age of 89, one year shy of his 90th, and if he had lived to 90, the 3 boys were going to get him a stripper. Can you imagine a stripper at his age? But he did like the ladies, especially the younger ones.”

“He was a great cook too. Always made something Italian, didn’t matter what.”

Now that’s something I can really appreciate (a great cook). On my website: charliestella.com you can see on the blurb page where i won a spaghetti eating contest many moons (and pounds) ago. I LOVE food (especially Italian). When my mom passes, so does the family meatball recipe. My daughter is the only one who knows it but she’s not speaking to me …